The Anatomies of God, the Bible, and Religion

Faith or Reason The resolution of an argument, a controversy, or a conflict begins when a common ground of understanding is established. In science and engineering there exists a benchmark, a foundation upon which all advances in understanding rests. Even in the esoteric field of philosophy, different views and conclusions can be argued satisfactorily. Other disagreements between men can be resolved by referring to a common set of laws. Only in religion does an unbridgeable chasm exist between men of differing beliefs, faiths or reasons. There is little common ground between those who readily accept the supernatural and those who don’t; between those who believe Jesus was the Son of God and those who say he was only an exceptionally gifted man. The man of faith believes religion is a gift from God. He gladly accepts a creed, performs acts of piety and worship, takes the sacraments, observes rituals and performs sacrifices. He beseeches God to help him observe the commandments and live a life worthy of His grace. He believes in the miracles, revelations, and prophesies as revealed in the Bible. To others, religion is a man-made concept; man is master of his fate and all events can be explained as natural phenomenon. Some of these non-believers place Christianity, Judaism and Islam as the modern equivalent of and successors to the mythologies of the Sumerians, ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans. The Bible epitomizes the divide between the man of faith and the doubter. The former accepts the Bible as a sacred work; it is the repository of divine revelation. Its inconsistencies are excused; it is above questioning and only requires proper interpretation, the believer says. To the skeptic, it is a collection of human writings: poetry, history, prophesies, and guidance. To him, it belongs with the works of Aristotle, Plato, Homer, and Shakespeare. He considers the Old Testament to be a history of the ancient Israelites, and the New Testament as a one year, sketchy biography of the mystical man, Jesus. There can be no compromise between these two men. If the Bible is the Word of God, then it has to be taken literally; the Bible is an infallible instrument. That interpretation was acceptable to mankind when he had no scientific knowledge. Until geology, meteorology, and anthropology were understood, the universe being made in six days was unquestioned; Joshua could have made the moon and sun stand still; and Moses could have parted the Red Sea. Men of faith continue to accept the Bible as an infallible instrument; every exaggeration, every discrepancy, every incongruity, every contradiction has an explanation, they say. Two great philosophers disagree on the genesis of faith. Locke said, “There is one sort of proposition which challenges the highest degree of our assent upon bare testimony, whether the thing proposed agree or disagree with common experience, and the ordinary course of things, or no. The reason whereof is, because the testimony is of such a one as cannot deceive, nor be deceived, that is of God himself. This carries with it an assurance, beyond doubt, evidence beyond exception. This is called by a peculiar name, revelation; and our assent to it, faith; which as absolutely determines our minds, and perfectly excludes all wavering, as our knowledge itself; and we may as well doubt of our own being, as we can whether any revelation from God be true. So that faith is a settled and sure principle of assent and assurance, and leaves no manner of room for doubt or hesitation. Only we must be sure that it be a divine revelation, and that we understand it right.” Hobbes believed that, “Faith depends only upon certainty or probability of arguments drawn from reason or from something men believe already. Faith does not come by supernatural inspiration or infusion but by education, discipline, correction, and other natural ways, by which God worketh them in his elect, at such time as he thinketh fit. Consequently when we believe that the Scriptures are the word of God, having no immediate revelation from God himself, our belief, faith and trust is in the Church, whose word we take and acquiesce therein.” Locke believed faith comes directly from God. Hobbes, said it is a gift of God but man acquires it through education and discipline. Contrasting views are put forward by Freud and Marx. Both believe science is enough and that religion is a response to a neurotic need. Freud says that “if a man does not have science or art than belief in religion is justified. For ‘life’ as we find it is too hard and we cannot do without palliative remedies.” Freud had an ongoing adversarial dialogue with theologians. He believed religion was a proper study for scientific investigation and resented their conclusion that science was incompetent to sit in judgment. Freud declared, “If we are not deterred by this brusque dismissal but inquire on what grounds religion bases its claim to an exceptional position among human concerns, the answer we receive, if indeed we are honored with an answer at all, is that religion cannot be measured by human standards, since it is of divine origin, and has been revealed to us by a spirit which the human mind cannot grasp.” Marx had a dismal view of theologians. He said, “Theologians establish two kinds of religions. Every religion but their own is an invention of men, while their own religion is an emanation from God.” He also said, “Religion is the opiate of the people.” The relationship between church and state has been considered by leading religious and political thinkers: Plato, Aquinas, Augustine, Rousseau, and Montesquieu. Plato believed the justice of the state and its laws must be founded not only on nature but also upon religion and a right belief in the gods. Rousseau was concerned with which religion. He says, “What the state needs is a purely civil profession of faith, of which the Sovereign should fix the articles, not exactly as religious dogmas, but as social sentiments without which a man cannot be a good citizen or a faithful subject.” Montesquieu believed in a Christian theocracy. “The principles of Christianity would be infinitely more powerful than the false honor of monarchies, than the human virtues of republics, or the servile fear of despotic states.” Old Testament Jews formed a theocracy, and one has been tried several times in the last thousand years. Each was a dismal failure. Three positions can be taken regarding the relationship between church and state: complete separation (U.S. Constitution); integration between the two (16th century England); or subordination to the Church (16th century Spain). Hobbes, Augustine and Roger Bacon argue for integration between church and state. They would place kings in the service of the priesthood and make a supreme pontiff who governs both spiritually and temporally. Aquinas declared that no civil law can be valid or binding if what it commands is contrary to divine law. Hegel believed the state should require all citizens belong to a church. The question that should be put to those that believe as these four do is, what is divine law? Men write all laws. Declaring certain ones to be divine does not make them so. The Frenchman Voltaire believed in the preeminence of reason and believed the church’s emphasis on faith was a form of mind control or brainwashing, the term used today. In the middle of the eighteenth century, he declared war on Christianity and the Catholic Church. He emphasized the faults of Christianity in history. He minimized the persecution of Christians by early Rome and said it occurred far less frequently and murderously than the persecution of heretics by the Church. He thought that priests had usurped power by propagating absurd doctrines among ignorant and credulous people and by using the hypnotic power of ritual to deaden the mind and strengthen these delusions.